Hi,
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Greg Banks wrote:
Why do you want to do the parser/syntax switch separately? Why do you want
to write and test a parser just to be throw it away again?
So that the changes have some chance of getting past Linus.
Sorry, but that's a dumb reason. Linus is quite
[I wrote]
I guess I wasn't quite clear: my current implementation is both
visibility + value, not visibility only (like current if [ ]) or
value only (like an earlier discussion of dep_if).
[Greg Banks]
Aha. I think you're going to be arguing uphill to get it in.
Could be. Perhaps
Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Greg Banks wrote:
Why do you want to do the parser/syntax switch separately? Why do you want
to write and test a parser just to be throw it away again?
So that the changes have some chance of getting past Linus.
Sorry, but that's a
Peter Samuelson wrote:
There are lots of instances of things like
if [ $CONFIG_FOO = y -o $CONFIG_FOO = m ]; then
dep_tristate 'Bar' CONFIG_BAR $CONFIG_FOO
...
fi
which can be replaced by
dep_if CONFIG_FOO
tristate 'Bar' CONFIG_BAR
...
dep_fi
Yes,
